BlackFive

Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point.  Four of the servicemembers who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort.  A lot more were wounded.  I believe America’s security demanded those deployments.  But I am haunted by those deaths.  I am haunted by those wounds.  And I would betray my duty to you and to the country we love if I ever sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.  

Or if I ordered a faux surge into Afghanistan complete with an expiration date that ensured it could not possibly succeed to satisfy my campaign rhetoric. Oh wait, you did exactly that and you did betray all of those who died after you sent them to a war you had already given up on. Now Afghanistan goes firmly into the loss column, and while that is shared by you and your predecessor, the dead and wounded you sent there are on your conscience.

Here’s my bottom line:  America must always lead on the world stage.  If we don’t, no one else will.  The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership.  But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.  

Another straw man bites the dust. Nice soundbite, but really just trite BS and something said regularly by military leaders. OK here comes some of the stuff I can agree with.

So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America and our military should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.  
 
First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency:  The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger.  In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just.  International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.  (Applause.)  
 
On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military action must be higher.  In such circumstances, we should not go it alone.  Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.  We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action.  In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.

He needs to add that when those vaunted multinational organizations. allies and frenemies chicken out or decide to follow their own self(ish) interests, we will still go it with the willing or alone in these instances as well. Otherwise you just added a "global test" or permission slip for action if action is what is required. But I accept his tiering of threats and the desire, if not need, for partners in less directly dangerous situations. That should always be the goal.

This leads to my second point:  For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.  But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable. 

Pause while another straw man is rolled out for ritual slaughter. Next he trotted out a new counterterrorism program, which I am going to skip as we have no idea what that actually means. 

Now, there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptics, who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action.  For them, working through international institutions like the U.N. or respecting international law is a sign of weakness.  I think they’re wrong.  Let me offer just two examples why.

Oooh another straw man bites the dust. Respecting international law is fine, allowing it to hobble us is a bad idea. 

In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe.   But this isn’t the Cold War.  Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. 

What? Oh that's right the State Department deployed some potent hashtag diplomacy #UnitedforUkraine and then Putin turned tail and ran. 

Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.  And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.

Tell that to the Russian Spetsnasz fighting the Ukraininans at Donetsk airport. They aren't feeling too weighed down.
 
OK I am tired. I have noted that some of his rhetoric about America's place in the world is wonderful. If employed it would be a welcome change. I am not holding my breath.